Matt, While making a 16X20 may be a snap for 35mm film, I would submit that it is painfully obvious when compared to MF or LF. I personally don't think 35mm generally looks that good beyond 11X14 - even there the difference is obvious.
Bruce Monday, February 10, 2003, 10:18:48 AM, you wrote: MG> --- Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Don't tell me, tell the digital is best guys. Mind >> you >> I had a model who printed out 4 MP shots she took on >> her digi cam to 8x10 and showed an agency, They >> laughed and told her to get shots on film. >> >> --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I've read alot of "garbage" about how you >> > only need so many Mpixels scans to make a really >> > good >> > 8X10" digital print. Well I've been printing >> > alot of 8X10" BW prints lately (digital, Epson >> 1280 >> > printer set to 2880 dpi) and I'm finding >> > you need LOTS of Mpixels to get optimum >> > results. MG> > MG> I will cast this observation: you put more data on a MG> 35mm negative shooting ISO 50 film than you can MG> megapixelith a 14.1 megapixel small format SRL with a MG> prime lens. None of which is of any importance unless MG> you want to enlarge... say to about a 24 x 30 sized MG> print. Some ISO 100 film will get you beymegapixel30: MG> a 14.1 megapixel digital SLR won't now and never will. MG> You need a medium format body, a 3-pass digital back MG> and a lot of computer interpolation to get there, even MG> with medium format. MG> As we all know, a 16 x 20 enlargement is a snap with MG> film, a stretch with small format digital. MG> *I am not forgetting however, that some double-page, MG> slick magazine ads are being shot with small format, MG> multi-megapixel SLRs. MG> ===== MG> Matt Greene MG> I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
